96 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



Lijitcninae and Lycaeninae, the latter with the Nemeohiinae and Lemo- 

 niinac). III. — Gens: Libythe^ (with the family Lihytheidae) . IV. — 

 Gens : Danaid^e (consisting of the family iJanaididae, with the sub-families 

 Danaidinae, Cluthildinae, Hamadryadinae Sind Ithomiinae). V. — Gens : 

 Satyri (consisting of the family Satyridae, with the sub-families 

 Satyrinae, Brassolinae and Mnr pinnae). VI. — Gens : Nymphales (with 

 the family Nywphalidae, and the sub-families Aeraeinae, Heliconiinae 

 and Ny}iiphalinae). 



Of these, the gens Papiliones is considered to have first branched 

 off from the main Ehopaloceran trunk. The five other gentes then 

 follow, in the order indicated above, their points of origin being con- 

 sidered to have taken place from the main trunk near each other, but 

 on different sides from the main Papilionid branch. For a considera- 

 tion of the branching that gave rise to the various families and sub- 

 families, as well as of the stirpes, tribes and subtribes, into which the 

 sub-families are divided, it is necessary to refer the reader to my work, 

 on account of the limited space now at my disposal. In this, these 

 points are all thoroughly discussed, and a genealogical tree exhibits 

 diagrammatically and in detail, my views of the phylogeny of the 

 different groups. It also shows the origin and subdivision of each of 

 these gentes, families, sub-families, stirpes, tribes and sub-tribes. 



The family Hesperiidae is, on account of several circumstances 

 (discussed in detail in my work), separated as a distinct suborder, 

 Grypocera, from the true butterflies, or Ilhnpalocera. As to the basal- 

 fleck particularly (pi. i., fig. 6), it differs very markedly in structure 

 from that of the Ehopalocera, always occupying a much larger area, 

 whilst the chitinous cones, which are unusually small and irregularly 

 and diff'usedly distributed, are covered with very peculiar modified hair- 

 structures, which occur only in the HesperiidaeS' None of the different 

 characters already mentioned as specially characteristic of all the 

 Ehopalocerous gentes, are found in this family. The basalfleck, 

 indeed, as well as the palpi of the Hesperiidae, represents a type quite 

 different from that of the Rhopalocera, a view which is confirmed by 

 several other characters. 



The Rhopalocera of former authors is, therefore, considered as 

 a heterogeneous group, but in sensii fitrictiori, i.e., the Hespenidaehemg 

 excluded, forms a natural one, having a monophyletic origin. The phylo- 

 genetic branches, representing the Grypocera and the Rhopalocera, have 

 not risen very close to each other from the lepidopterous genealogical tree. 

 As to the probable ancestors of the Rhopalocera, I cannot say anything 

 for certain ; it may, however, be stated that neither Castnia nor Cossns, 

 both sometimes suggested as progenitors of the Rhopalocera, on 

 account of the structure of the palpi, at all satisfy the necessary 

 requirements, nor present the requisite characters that are indispensable 

 in the presumed ancestors of this group. The Rhopaloceran type is 

 considered, in accordance with the view of Scudder, to have been fully 

 developed at least in the beginning of the Tertiary epoch. 



It may here be mentioned, that these phylogenetic conclusions are 

 by no means based on my studies of the palpi only ; I have, on the 

 contrary, always taken into consideration other characters, from the 

 different stages of development, affording any test of relationship ; 



* These hair-formations are not to be compared with those, apparently similar 

 ones, occurring in Miletus and Eurxjhia. 



